Everyone's waiting for NG doing 747Classics in detail and correct all the way - so how many differences are there on a "747Classic"?

[Phantom]

Thought it might be fun to collect the various differences that can be spotted on a "747Classic" (1970 to 1991) - many of these are worth to be molded correctly, some details are sure over the top in 1/400 and are more for the serious (larger) scale modeler. So this is really just for the fun.


First and most classic 747: the 747-100 as seen in the early 1970's
Here's D-ABYC with the typical SATCOM aerial just aft of the upperdeck, HF-antennas on the wingtips, early "straight" pylons and JT9D nacelles with secondary air inlet ("blow in") doors. (Note that #1 is idling in this image!)

Lufthansa Boeing 747-100; D-ABYC@FRA, June 1976 by Aero Icarus, auf Flickr


And here's D-ABYD, a typical early 1970's 747-200
Spot the difference? All the same? No. Look at the wheels. The series -100 was certified for 46x16 (707 series) tires, the basic weight variant 713 even for 44x16.
An early -200 had to roll on the larger 49x17 due to increased weights. But be aware that this only works one way: small tires can't be a -200, but larger tires could be a -100 (variant 753)

https://www.airhistory.net/photo/210889/D-ABYD

D-ABYD again, a few years later.
Early in the 1970's the engine nacelles were modified to get rid of the "blow in" doors in order to reduce noise and IIRC also because the early setup was critical to operate at cross/tailwinds (same like on the C-5)
The new "quiet" nacelle featured a slightly larger nose cowl with thicker, reshaped intake lips.
Mid to late 70's the SATCOM also was removed from most 747s

https://www.airhistory.net/photo/67448/D-ABYD


Mid 1970's a new engine was certified to allow further increased weights on the -200: the CF6-50E2
Seen here on D-ABYX
D-ABYX LH Boeing 747-230B "KÖLN" @ FRA 1987 by T Jerkson, auf Flickr



In order to compete with GE's CF6-50 for the increased MTOW variants, P&W developed the JT9D-70A housed in a common nacelle that not only worked for the 742 but also for A300 and DC-10 - the nacelle (largest and heaviest on a 747Classic) was a fail and only few airframes were equipped with it.
SAS' SE-DFZ was one of those few
SE-DFZ Boeing 747-283BM ARN 19790428 by Kjell Nilsson, auf Flickr


Another engine option came from RR in shape of the RB211-524..
Here's G-BDXL
G-BDXL_1984-03_MUC_1290_WHC by Munich-Riem Aviation Photos, auf Flickr


In the later 1970's an updated pylon for the JT9D-7.. was available. Note the differently shaped trailing edge.
This is ZS-SAN with the new pylons.
Interestingly, this airframe made quite a transition. It was delivered with SATCOM, "blow in"-door nacelles and old pylons of course but gradually lost all of these "features" throughout the 70's.
ZS-SAN SAA 747-244B "Lebombo" @ LHR 1983 by T Jerkson, auf Flickr


Here's the first 747 series -300, built 1982.
HB-IGC features the stretched upperdeck of course, also vissible the new (now standard) PW pylons and the slightly longer nacelles for the new JT9D-7R4.. powerplant which already was closer to a PW4000 than it was to a JT9D-3.
Swissair B747-357 HB-IGC at Kai Tak 6.9.1985 by Alex Rankin, auf Flickr


From around 1987 Boeing started switching over to the 747-400 and a few "-400 features" made it to the "classics" already.
Only two series -200 were built with GE's new CF6-80C2 - otherwise still "classic"
Here's 747-2G4B aka VC-25A, 82-8000
USAF VC-25A 82-8000 by Alexander Kern, auf Flickr


1987 until 1991 saw some wild mixes of old and new
Here's the last ever built "classic" JA8194. Interestingly the only vissible "-400 feature" on this 1991 airframe is the new aerodynamically refined wing-to-body fairing. Still has CF6-50E2 and HF-antennas on the wingtips
ja8194 30.09.06 ams1 by Tim Webster, auf Flickr

 

[Phantom]

1990 built B-2462 shows the updated wing-to-body fairing, JT9D-7R4.. powerplants and has the HF-antenna moved from the wingtip into the vertical tails leading edge
B-2462 DFRA 3-8-2004 by Keld Bonfizz, auf Flickr


There's quite a few other combinations of old and new, so let me just post the most advanced looking 747Classics ever produced:
Air India took delivery of two 747-300s in 1988.
Externally they looked like -400s with missing wingtip extensions - VT-EPW
VT-EPW FRA 2003 by DUB Ramp, auf Flickr

Please add in case I forgot something.

 

[OscarBravo992]

My god… No wonder it has taken NG so long. I feel like someone should make them aware of this, I would imagine that it would help them a lot. Realistically, I doubt we will have every single one of these variations, the most likely maybe the different engines and pylons, along with HF+wing and plain wing variations. Maybe the tyres might get changed for the -100/-200s.

 

[Moschops]

Thank you, an excellent post and very informative, I was unaware of all those features, I only ever got as far as top deck windows...

 

[OscarBravo992]

Thank you, an excellent post and very informative, I was unaware of all those features, I only ever got as far as top deck windows...

Welcome to the community! To be honest, I only ever got as far as the windows and engines too...

 

[LeoMuse747]

This is a fantastic guide! Thank you so much! I didn't know about the new pylon design on the B747-200s.
I've always noticed about the landing gear tire size difference between the B747-100 and B747-200, but i've never seen someone talking about it. Sometimes I used to think "maybe my eyes are playing tricks on me?!"

About the Air India B747-300:

Air India, Thai and Varig were the only airlines to ever operate (brand new) the B747-300 with GE CF6-80 engines, the same ones used on the later 747-400 version. I guess these late built B747-300s were "almost" B747-400s! Externally, they look identical to the B747-400D, which were high-density domestic versions used only in Japan by JAL and ANA.

Air India: VT-EPX and VT-EPW
Thai: HS-TGD and HS-TGE
Varig: PP-VOA, PP-VOB, PP-VOC

fun fact: Varig had two other B747-300s, which were PP-VNH and PP-VNI, and these had the earlier GE CF6-50 engine type. So basically they had their 747-300 fleet with two different engine variants.

 

[AKlein707]

Too much NG hype!! I can assure you that if they were to make 747s, I will NOT be boxing up all my AC/BB/GJ/JC/DW 747s and replacing them with more expensive NG 747s!! Makes no sense at all!!

 

[1/400collector]

Too much NG hype!! I can assure you that if they were to make 747s, I will NOT be boxing up all my AC/BB/GJ/JC/DW 747s and replacing them with more expensive NG 747s!! Makes no sense at all!!

Well yeah I won't get rid of my BB400/AC 747 but the hype is because no o e can really find or pay the high prices for those models

 

[OscarBravo992]

Too much NG hype!! I can assure you that if they were to make 747s, I will NOT be boxing up all my AC/BB/GJ/JC/DW 747s and replacing them with more expensive NG 747s!! Makes no sense at all!!

I agree with @1/400collector. I am sure I and many other collectors will not replace their AC/BB400 747s with NGs, but will still going to buy the NGs to go alongside them in my collection. I think the hype is deserved, old AC/BB400 747s sell for ridiculous amounts on eBay, which severely limits the number of people who can afford them. NG's 747s will be expensive, but they will cost nowhere near the price of an AC/BB400 747. I think the hype is justified, especially considering NG will probably make some 747s that either match or beat the BB400 ones.

 

[pons399]

I agree with @1/400collector. I will not be replacing my AC/BB400 747s with NGs, but I will still buy the NGs to go alongside them in my collection. I think the hype is deserved, old AC/BB400 747s sell for ridiculous amounts on eBay, which severely limits the number of people who can afford them. NGs 747s will be expensive, but they will cost nowhere near the price of an AC/BB400 747. I think the hype is justified, especially considering NG will probably make some 747s that either match or beat the BB400 ones.

The BB400's a cradle mould, so it wouldn't even be a valid comparison. The fact that such a subpar mould (for today's standards) is held in high regard just proves how long the 747 classics have been hung out to dry. Easily my most anticipated NG release, behind the 748.

 

[OscarBravo992]

The BB400's a cradle mould, so it wouldn't even be a valid comparison. The fact that such a subpar mould (for today's standards) is held in high regard just proves how long the 747 classics have been hung out to dry. Easily my most anticipated NG release, behind the 748.

I wouldn't call the BB400 mould subpar. Yes, a cradle mould does put it below today's widebody standards, but by no means is it a bad mould. It is extremely accurate, and even though it is a cradle, it still easily defeats all of the other available 747s. I understand that they all have their faults, but the BB400 is still extremely good. I do prefer not having a cradle if that is an option, which is why I am so excited about the NG.

 

[mark4323]

@Phantom what a great job - I had no idea. Thanks for the detailed analysis.

 

[Phantom]

It is extremely accurate, and even though it is a cradle, it still easily defeats all of the other available 747s

Let's put it this way: it's better than the others but it's far from good.

Back 20 years ago when the BB400 747s appeared they looked great due to their gears, wingtip-antenna and crisp printing, but they were less accurate to shape than DWs 747s.
There's actually two things why I never was a fan of BB400 747s:
- the v.tail is just off in shape. As much as I tried I can't ignore it
- the "pylon-in-wing" mould was so outdated already 20 years ago. Even if you'd try, you just can't create any detail/accuracy with such design and BB400 engines going with it were extremely crude.

I don't care who'll come up with a new 747Classic mould, but my hopes are with NG, simply because they try to do what certain other brands cannot or will not: deliver a detailed and accurate product. And if it's 20% more expensive, so be it.
Luckily, NG are usually equal or even cheaper to have than AC for example, at least over here.

 

[OscarBravo992]

Let's put it this way: it's better than the others but it's far from good.

Back 20 years ago when the BB400 747s appeared they looked great due to their gears, wingtip-antenna and crisp printing, but they were less accurate to shape than DWs 747s.
There's actually two things why I never was a fan of BB400 747s:
- the v.tail is just off in shape. As much as I tried I can't ignore it
- the "pylon-in-wing" mould was so outdated already 20 years ago. Even if you'd try, you just can't create any detail/accuracy with such design and BB400 engines going with it were extremely crude.

I don't care who'll come up with a new 747Classic mould, but my hopes are with NG, simply because they try to do what certain other brands cannot or will not: deliver a detailed and accurate product. And if it's 20% more expensive, so be it.
Luckily, NG are usually equal or even cheaper to have than AC for example, at least over here.

You probably know better than me. I have only ever owned 1 BB400 747, and it was only for a short period of time before I sold it. When I say excellent, I mean in comparison to the other 747 moulds available to us. From the moment I first held one, I noticed the v. stab and just like you, I cannot remove it from my mind. Looking at pictures of it compared to Gemini, Dragon, and other moulds it, aside from the Dragon, defeats them in most aspects. Yes the tail is not good and the engines are bad, it is the best we have, and that is what makes it excellent.

 

[Phantom]

Air India, Thai and Varig were the only airlines to ever operate (brand new) the B747-300 with GE CF6-80 engines, the same ones used on the later 747-400 version. I guess these late built B747-300s were "almost" B747-400s! Externally, they look identical to the B747-400D, which were high-density domestic versions used only in Japan by JAL and ANA.

Air India: VT-EPX and VT-EPW
Thai: HS-TGD and HS-TGE
Varig: PP-VOA, PP-VOB, PP-VOC

Only the ones for Air India. Thai and Varig were earlier on the line and still had the classic wing-to-body fairing. I think PP-VOC was the last 747 built with a "classic" fairing. All later numbers came with the new fairing AFAIK.

 

[quanng]

Thank you Phantom for your B747 Classic summation! I agree that we kinda need an array of moulds to manufacture the variety of versions. I have made a small post regarding the difference in B743 visual appearances, posted on MAF: https://modelairlinerforum.com/thre...tiglare-b743-visual-differences.149/post-2662
From my perspective, to accommodate the B741 to B744, we require at least these different parts:
- Fuselage (4): - original upper deck with 2 different wing-to-body fairings (classics and modern - used for B744 Freight as well), Stretched Upper Deck with 2 different wing-to-body fairings (classic is suitable for B742SUD and the majority of B743).
- Wings (5): standard WBF with HF/non HF, modern WBF with HF/non HF/B744 winglets
- Engines (around 7): PW JT9D (-7R4G2, -7, -70A), GE (CF6-50/80), RR RB211 (-524C2/D4 and 524H/G/T on B744).
I hope that you can add more points to my reply. Cheers!

 

[Barison82]

Very informative post, with the usual throroughness, thank you Phantom. I would not ever part with any of my BB/AC 747s despite their flaws, however I'd definitely welcome a new and updated version in 1:400 for the 2020s. As others have mentioned, it is nigh on impossible finding the BB/AC 747s at a realistic and affordable price these days, locking many new collectors out. There are also some missing classics still to be made, plus it would be good to see some of the previous 'grails reissued with correct artwork, as a few have errors.

 

[Phantom]

Fuselage (4): - original upper deck with 2 different wing-to-body fairings (classics and modern - used for B744 Freight as well), Stretched Upper Deck with 2 different wing-to-body fairings (classic is suitable for B742SUD and the majority of B743).
- Wings (5): standard WBF with HF/non HF, modern WBF with HF/non HF/B744 winglets
- Engines (around 7): PW JT9D (-7R4G2, -7, -70A), GE (CF6-50/80), RR RB211 (-524C2/D4 and 524H/G/T on B744).

- Agreed on the fuselages - the making of the Satcom aerial would be interesting though
- wings: I'd see just three (classic + new WBF and a -400), the HF antennas can be sanded
- I'd expect different JT9D nacelles as aftermarket conversions for larger scale kits but not in 1/400. I do 100% expect an early pylon though. The later setup is already there on NG's 747SP.
A -70A is a rare engine, but the subjects may warrant making one. SAS 70s/80s, Seaboard or Avianca come to mind - all of them must haves.
The others are save I'd think

 

[Barison82]

A -70A is a rare engine, but the subjects may warrant making one. SAS 70s/80s, Seaboard or Avianca come to mind - all of them must haves.
The others are save I'd think

I think this Aerolineas Argentinas B.747-287B, LV-MLO, had the -70A engines fitted as well for a short while, on delivery in 1979:

 

[Phantom]

I think this Aerolineas Argentinas B.747-287B, LV-MLO, had the -70A engines fitted as well for a short while, on delivery in 1979:

Thanks, completely forgot about this one. Seems like this one was converted to the -7Q (?) rather fast. Definitely another want for the collection.
I'm counting a total nine airframes with the -70A unless there were even more like LV-MLO that don't appear in today's databases.

How about this for a special mould: -70A powerplants and blended winglets